Which "canon" are they speaking of when they talk about bishops not being married? I was under the impression that that idea was not solidly in place until after the first great schism (over chalcedon), but the document speaks as though it is a canon common to both Churches.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 02:03:51 AM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

You just stole my ideas whilst rejecting my conclusions. Seriously man, as I tried to explain, the position you adopt is just as dishonest as its opposite extreme, for it selectively accepts certain aspects of the Church's Life whilst rejecting others. If your concern was for the Truth alone and nothing but the Truth, then you would consider the Life of the Church as a whole and accept it as it is; you would not be pushing certain aspects of the Church's life to their extreme logical conclusions. Needless to say, I believe you're influenced, whether intentionally or not, by other motives.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

You just stole my ideas whilst rejecting my conclusions. Seriously man, as I tried to explain, the position you adopt is just as dishonest as its opposite extreme, for it selectively accepts certain aspects of the Church's Life whilst rejecting others. If your concern was for the Truth alone and nothing but the Truth, then you would consider the Life of the Church as a whole and accept it as it is; you would not be pushing certain aspects of the Church's life to their extreme logical conclusions. Needless to say, I believe you're influenced, whether intentionally or not, by other motives.

Gosh...I hate it when I look like I'm plagiarizing

But really those ideas were posted by me on another website (well not in its fullness as you put it). I just noticed that the language is something intriguing, and I never thought the Pope himself would express it as such (although I felt there were implications beforehand). I really did though look past the condemnation against Max Michel and saw this as something I have seen for the first time an expression of agreement that both "families" locally work together as if they consider one another sister Orthodox churches.

But if anything, you might be right. I don't know. This whole issue is a bumpy ride. I just see it this way: if they were never of the Church to begin with, the dialogues should give us a different tone, or at least clarify itself, and perhaps declarations like these are, as you and I agree, are pointless. I mean people have lost faith in Orthodoxy (even faith in Christianity) over this stuff. As much as it sounds hopeful, to many it's also heartbreaking. If I do not believe in what I believe, I feel that the Church then truly has lost its defenses against the gate of Hades.

As for the canon, perhaps they are talking about a local canon? I personally have yet to find this canon, but I was interested more in the implications of this agreement.

God bless.

Mina

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I didn't mean to sort of sidestep the main issue. When it comes to the unity issue between EO and OO, I guess I've just already had my fill, so to speak, with all the stuff that happened in the 90's. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth, again, on this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Now I do think that the OO and EO are alot closer than many others here do, but I will say that two churches working together to keep unified beliefs among them doesn't mean they accept each other. It could be possible they just want to make things easier for the other if they decide to admit error and join their church. Why do we care so much when liberal Protestant groups ordinate women? Becuase the further they go, the harder it is for them to come back. It might just be the same with this case.

Logged

"Let us love one another first, then in an atmosphere of love we can discuss theological matters." - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

I didn't mean to sort of sidestep the main issue. When it comes to the unity issue between EO and OO, I guess I've just already had my fill, so to speak, with all the stuff that happened in the 90's. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth, again, on this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't mean anything by what I said, just wanted to stress what I thought was interesting about this document. I actually do care about your question though. I asked your question a couple of months back, but I received no answer (actually more than a half a year ago!).

God bless.

Mina

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.